No, this was an offer, and NOT a promise, but a promise that functioned as his consideration constituted his offer.

I lost you after the but. An offer consists of a promise IF the other party agrees to its responsibilities under the offer. An offer consists of 1.) a "conditional" promise by the offeror, and a 2.) a "proposed" promise for the offeree.

No, this was an offer, and NOT a promise, but a promise that functioned as his consideration constituted his offer.

I lost you after the but. An offer consists of a promise IF the other party agrees to its responsibilities under the offer. An offer consists of 1.) a "conditional" promise by the offeror, and a 2.) a "proposed" promise for the offeree.

Exactly, but notice how you've moved from using the term promise as (I'll give you X for nothing) to some other sense.

That's what I'm trying to point out: you're sliding between senses (a fallacy called equivocation). If you can keep that straight in your head, then go for it.

underdawg wrote:if all promises were gratuitous promises, why do they bother with the extra word?

I'm saying that NOT all promises are gratuitous. Some are. Those that are cannot serve as consideration or an offer. Some of those that are not gratuitous can function as consideration and be an offer.

Now you're using 'offer' in two senses. If we're sitting next to each other, then I can offer you the ketchup, but that's not the sense of offer in contracts. This shouldn't even have to be said, but here it goes: a gratuitous promise is not a LEGAL offer.

cannoneer wrote:Oh, in that case, I guess our prof said all promises are gratuitous, which is why he left that word out.

I doubt he said that. My guess is, is that he just didn't use the word 'gratuitous'. You don't have to use the word to have the concept. There are some promises that can function as consideration and some that cannot. Some of those promises that cannot function as consideration are gratuitous promises (i.e., promises which I have no legal obligation to perform). You don't need to use the term 'gratuitous'.

The semantic confusion that you might find yourself in is this: if you understand that some promises can function as consideration and some cannot, but then proceed to define promise in terms only of those promises that cannot function as consideration, then you're equivocating, and, I think at least, run a good chance of confusing yourself.

"gift/gratuitous promise" v. "(conditional) promise constituting consideration"which most people would think of as promise v. offer, given the way the question was asked.

an extremely poorly written and dumb way of answering the question, especially in saying that the gift promise constitutes consideration (which it doesn't if you take the accepted view that consideration is a two-way street and that when we talk about there being consideration for a promise we're talking about the inducement for the promise; to take the [tautological] view that the promise itself is always consideration—to the extent that it is a promise to do something—I think the normal response is: "no shit, that's what the word 'promise' means")

bwv812 wrote:zhensley is calling everything that hasn't been done a promise.

"gift/gratuitous promise" v. "(conditional) promise constituting consideration"which most people would think of as promise v. offer, given the way the question was asked.

an extremely poorly written and dumb way of answering the question, especially in saying that the gift promise constitutes consideration (which it doesn't if you take the accepted view that consideration is a two-way street and that when we talk about there being consideration for a promise we're talking about the inducement for the promise; to take the [tautological] view that the promise itself is always consideration—to the extent that it is a promise to do something—I think the normal response is: "no shit, that's what the word 'promise' means")

I really don't know what your problem is. I've already stated that I was making my first post simplistic so as to bracket everything but the issue at hand. I'll take responsibility for your not understanding what I wrote in the first post. The fact that you still don't understand is due to your denseness, I think.

If you go back and look at this conversation again between cannoneer and myself, you'll see the problem I was trying to point out. When you equivocate, you run the risk of sliding between the two different senses of the word 'promise'. That is, at one point, cannoneer was claiming that the term 'promise' referred only to gratuitous promises. Then, by the end of it, he was claiming that (using his own terminology) that illusory promises aren't promises at all. Assuming that illusory promise=gratuitous promise, then he's claimed on the one hand that all promises are gratuitous/illusory and that no gratuitous/illusory promise is a real promise.

So, again, if you want me to say that my original post was misleading, then that's fine. I'll admit that, but you seem incapable of realizing that my subsequent posts have clarified that.

Now, I never claimed that a gratuitous promise was consideration. What I said was that, if I stated, "I'll pay you $100" and you said "I accept" the big problem with it is that YOU didn't offer anything as consideration. That is, the entire contract doesn't have to be explicit. State it this way: If I say to you "I'll give you $100" and you, because you're a good law student, reply, "Well, I'll mow your lawn for that $100." Since the promise doesn't have to be completely explicit, a court very easily could take it that given the context in my promise was implied an offer; in fact, it is likely that a court would find a contract even if you didn't respond with a promise, but by actually mowing my lawn. I'm not saying that they definitely will, but it's possible. The point is this: that phrase, "I'll give you $100" can function as consideration; or at least it can be offered as consideration. I did not say that a gratuitous promise was supported by consideration. What I said was that in the example where I say, "I'll give you $100" is that YOU didn't offer anything as consideration.

Again, you seem to excel at missing the point: my point was never to claim that an offer doesn't have to be in exchange for something; nor have I ever claimed that a gratuitous promise constituted consideration (if by consideration you're here using it as that which will make an agreement legally binding, but I said that I would have offered a promise as consideration, but was not met with any consideration from you). I was merely saying that the term 'promise' was being used by several previous posters that was likely to lead to confusion because of equivocation (as has been made readily apparent in, for example, cannoneer's postings).

adambrown wrote:All promises are not gratuitous. A promise is consideration if it is bargained for, like others have said.

yes.

an offer is either written or spoken:A: i will sell you my car for $1000 (promise to sell car for $1000)B: can either accept (promise to pay $1000), reject or make a counteroffer (i will only give you $900).

a promise can be consideration (like adam wrote). the consideration must be sufficient or it will not be enforceable.

A: i will sell you my car for $1000 (promise to sell car)B: i accept ( promise to pay $1000)both have given sufficient consideration = contract

EDIT: stop fighting, finals are almost over!!! <3

A: i will sell you my brand new car for $1B: i acceptboth have made a promise, but consideration is not sufficient. nominal consideration, courts may see A's promise as a gratuitous promise. no contract

Example of gratuitous promise (there is no consideration)A: i will give you $1000 tomorrow (not enforceable -still a promise, but no consideration because not asking for anything in return)B: i accept. (B has done nothing and has no detriment)no consideration = no contract

Illusory promise (no consideration)A: i promise to sell you my car for $1000 if i want to tomorrow (not enforeable - theres a promise, but no consideration because A is not bound to the statement - "if i want to" - there needs to be a limitation, A cannot have complete control.)B: i acceptno consideration = no contract

bwv812 wrote:So, again, if you want me to say that my original post was misleading, then that's fine. I'll admit that, but you seem incapable of realizing that my subsequent posts have clarified that.

Now, I never claimed that a gratuitous promise was consideration."

Actually, you did, and you do it again a few lines later:

zhensley wrote: The point is this: that phrase, "I'll give you $100" can function as consideration

I think everyone would accept that if I promise to give you $100, the promise to give $100 is my consideration. There's not much else it could be. The only sensible way of talking about consideration is to ask if there's any mutually induced consideration from you. If there isn't, there no consideration.

I understand what you're talking about, but you have a very sloppy way of writing. If you want to talk about promises for everything, you best be saying "gift promise," "conditional gift promise," "promise constituting consideration."

It's not a problem of me being unable to understand your clarifications; it's a problem of your comments being rather unclear, way too long, and probably not very helpful to those who are already confused.